The is a continuation of a tangent from the "What's on your mind right now" thread

Below are the last few posts for clarity:
========================================================================================



========================================================================================



========================================================================================



========================================================================================



========================================================================================



========================================================================================

Thanks for your edit to the Stockholm Syndrome comment - very informative.

However I think that, in describing the CofE as a cult, you are rather overly-generous in your assessment of how much control most orthodox churches have over their members.

To be frank, most vicars and PCCs cannot together control anything more complex than a seemingly endless supply of crap music, weak coffee and Rich Tea biscuits.

In such circumstances we should thank God, because look what happens when the Priests do manage to set up a system of control and secrecy,

Type "catholic church sex abuse" into Google and read a few of the 2.2 million articles found.

My point is not that the religion created the evil; Dawkins didn't like Channel 4's choice of "The Root of Alll Evil" for his documentary on evil in the church (a must-watch FACTUAL documentary). The point is, if there's no benefit for being in the church, as even "religious" people today are willing to admit, when pressed, there's nothing truthful about the Bible, it's all "allegory" in other words "crap", what's the point in exposing yourself to these men of questionable moral views who, as you allude to, couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery? Isn't expecting these men to offer you meaningful life advice a little ill-advised?

Might I wade in......?

The reason that "the church", and in particular those of the Catholic variety, has garnered a bad reputation on the kiddy fiddling front is because of the perceived hypocrisy. These sorts of abuses of power go on in pretty much every large organisation on the planet. It's just that every other organisation on the planet doesn't necessarily publicly espouse "Christian" values.

What's my point?

People hold the church to a higher standard because it's supposed to be about God. But God isn't running the church - men are. And men are corrupt, weak, imperfect things. Personally, all this "higher standard" stuff is nonsense to me. Humans are imperfect and we should all remember that. Put a large enough number of people in any organisation and eventually you get problems. Maybe God's perfect (I don't know if he is), but we're not.

Men also wrote all of the religious texts as well that created the idea of a 'God'.

Just saying...

TBH you could eradicate religion from the face of the earth and I don't think it'd solve a single problem. Wars fought in the name of religion would just be fought under a different banner. People will continue to manipulate others for their own benefit, whether it be for money, sex, fame etc. Those who would turn to faith/religion to survive problems would be left with no other help. Some people need a psychological crutch to survive and taking it away will never help them stand on their own two feet.

I think it's JJW009 who stated that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Up until recently, we didn't know atoms existed. Imagine having to go back a thousand years ago. Just you on your own. How could you convince others of the existence of atoms? You'd have no proof but only conjecture. People might laugh and ridicule you for your belief in atoms in the absence of evidence.

If a God really does exist, we have no way of proving/knowing what he/she/it is like. That doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist. From a scientific POV, I still think we're in the prehistoric age. Look at us - smashing atoms together to find stuff isn't too far removed from bashing stones together to look for things.

Yes, men wrote the texts. But the idea of "God" was around a long time before that....

Wolf's right on imo. I'm happy not knowing. I run my life according to MY priciples, but that doesn't mean I should assume people who follow "God's" principles are stupid. Far from it.

Very true.

However, malevolence is not confined to the religious. Type "Stasi" into Google.

Systems of control and secrecy almost inevitably lead to evil, regardless of the philosophy therein.


I can see your point here but disagree on two points.

Firstly, unless I have confused matters, you conclude from my assertion of a lack of effective direction that there is no benefit from church membership. If the central benefit of membership were to be priestly direction then your assertion would be correct. However, particularly in the protestant tradition, priestly direction is a minor benefit seen by many as rather peripheral to Christian life. There are manifold personal and social benefits to church membership quite separate from the role of the priest.

Secondly, if the truth (or otherwise) of the Bible were contingent on the effective direction of a Christian organisation, the confessions of '"religious" people' or the benefits of membership then I would agree. However, I would contend that there is a different between the quality of a philosophy and the quality of its implementation. Moreover one of the central doctrines of the Christian faith is the authority of the Bible. Belief in this doctrine is central to the entire piece; to attempt Christian faith without it would be, IMO, to attempt to build a house whilst missing a corner of the foundation.

Nonetheless I think you alight upon two crucial points.

Although for Christians biblical authority is not derived from the conduct of Christians, for the non-Christian it definitely is. For my own part, the genesis of my own adult faith was contained in the sterling efforts of certain Christians who endeavoured to help me get off drugs.

And further, if, as an outside observer, you have become convinced that there is great detriment and no benefit to church membership then why would you (or others like you) want to join? I have seen the good side - the benefits if you will - but if you have seen only detriment, your atheism is understandable.



It's important to understand that, AFA most protestant churches are concerned, the role of the priest isn't to organise anything. In fact many mainstream churches have chosen structures in order to avoid precisely this eventuality. For instance, the baptist church I was in, the church affairs were run by a committee elected from the membership by secret ballot every 3 years.

As for "questionable moral views", I'm not sure what you mean.


If by that you mean taking the unvetted, off-the-cuff advice of a human being as infallible and inerrant, yes.

lol, I do say it quite often. It is oft a suitable and less insulting way of expressing "argumentum ad ignorantiam"...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Theist and atheist face the same challenge that we are all fundamentally ignorant.

I find fundamentalists from either side of the divide as tiresome as each other.
Both are closed to the possibility of each other's own unique marvels.

As for the existence of an omniscient creator that may or may not choose to presently (or previously) meddle in our affairs in return for affection nobody can say for certain.

On both sides of the fence, there is varying degrees of arrogance; it's like fleas on a dog arguing over the nature of the dog's owner.

Quite.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, in whatever sphere. (A/)Theism seems to attract more than it's fair share.

No, it's the same standard, and it's the reaction of the church, they've tried to protect the abusers.


The Vatican protects paedophiles, presumably because they have warped senses of morality/priorities.

No, I say it with certainty. To quote Bad Boy Bubby:

[LIFTED] you God, strike me down if you dare, you tyrant, you non-existant fraud.

Given that science cannot adequately explain where 90% of the universe is or what it's made of, I don't we are in any position to be making concrete claims about possible creators who presumably exist outside our own laws of physics, do you?

TBH if this is a God who doesn't seem to answer peoples' prayers, what makes you think he/she/it is going to listen to you?